Civil disobedience, rather than questioning legality

[John A Roark]

Suppose, as sovereign individuals, we simply decide to say, as every other boss in the world does (and are we not the bosses of our government?), "I'll pay you X salary for the job, and you make do."
In the real world, you and I have a certain amount of capital with which to make our lives function. Time is the constraint--if I had unlimited time, I could make unlimited money. But I have only 10-14 hours I am willing to work in any given day, and my skills as a bricklayer (haven't made the books pay off...YET!) will only earn me so much in my particular marketplace.
So I have to constrain my spending around how much I have.

I'm taking the long way around the barn to point out what we all here know, and that is, spending power is NOT unlimited, as Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and Barry Hussein seem to imagine.
What if we were to enforce the realization of that point by putting our feet down and saying, okay, you get 10% and THAT'S ALL!!
Not questioning the legal or moral implications of a tax system that is irretrievably broken...just refusing to give them more than they need, so there's none of this gallivanting off into left field with grandiose ideas that cost you and I extravagant amounts.

And while we're at it, does anyone have any thoughts about the feasibility of that old saw, a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget before ANY government employee (Fed, State or Local) receives a paycheck? That puts teeth into the reality behind NOT BORROWING AND SPENDING TOO DAMNED MUCH!

Thoughts?

[eternaltraveler]

Thoughts?

considering that they already spend multiples of what they actually collect in taxes it's pretty pointless.

[John Scott]

I think sooner or later there is going to be a revolt. A peaceful revolt maybe - such as a boycott of taxes. Or maybe some people will employ more violent means. Right now, we are victims of a totalitarian, socialist government that is committing massive armed robbery, murder, and more. The backlash always comes; it's just a matter of how.

[John A Roark]

Do we, Mr. Scott, actively help that along, or do we wait until the problem reaches a form of 'critical mass,' and join in then?

[John Scott]

Do we, Mr. Scott, actively help that along, or do we wait until the problem reaches a form of 'critical mass,' and join in then?

I think violent revolt would be morally permissible. After all, violent revolt would be self defense, and nobody denies the right to defend one's self.

But nobody want to fight an unwinnable war. So, first things first: get us 20,000 committed supporters. Then we will have the leverage we need.

Ron Paul had the supporters, but not the leadership. He should have called them out en masse and shut down a city. Ron Paul is too nice.

[kerrin]

So, first things first: get us 20,000 committed supporters. Then we will have the leverage we need.
John, have you heard about the organization Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/)?

According to Walter Williams:
They’re trying to get about 20,000 Americans, liberty-oriented Americans, to move to one state. They’re already decided on the state of New Hampshire. They want to peaceably take over the legislature and the executive, through the democratic process; and they want to also peaceably elect senators and congressmen; and having done that, they want to negotiate with Congress to obey the United States Constitution.

Not many of the members have gone as far as I’m suggesting, but I would say they should negotiate with Congress to obey the Constitution; and if Congress fails to obey the Constitution, then issue a unilateral Declaration of Independence.


Essentially secession.

Ron Paul had the supporters, but not the leadership. He should have called them out en masse and shut down a city. Ron Paul is too nice.
I think it's more a matter of his strategy. He's dead set on changing the GOP from within. Plus a lot of his speeches in Congress are not very nice.

[John A Roark]

An idea whose time has come.